Sony pretty much saved gaming this generation

  • 182 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Posted by mrintro (1354 posts) -

Xbox did pretty well in the beginning, but soon fizzled out. I would say the Xbox's legacy would be Xbox Live cause that really changed the game (pun intended) and pretty much was the predecessor to PS+. Wii will be remembered for successfully implementing motion controls into gaming. However, Sony has been spanking everybody with their games. I mean, damn, Last of Us, Puppeteer & Beyond Two Souls (all AAAEs) in just a matter of 4 months. There's also Ni No Kuni, another AAAE that came at the beginning of this year. Other 2013 Sony exclusives this year include God of War Ascension, Tales of Xillia, Kingdom Hearts Remix 1.5, Disgaea D2, Gran Turismo 6, Dust 514, and the upcoming Ratchet & Clank. And that's just 2013!! All I gotta say is http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NyEE0qpfeig

#2 Posted by DarkLink77 (31683 posts) -

Sony didn't save shit, because nothing failed. It did, however, take them three years to make their console worth a damn. Thank God that waiting period is over.

#3 Posted by lundy86_4 (42618 posts) -

Sony didn't save shit, because nothing failed. It did, however, take them three years to make their console worth a damn. Thank God that waiting period is over.

#4 Edited by kingoflife9 (1987 posts) -

Sony copied wii u's gamepad screen, (a cheap version with no display) and copied the Kinect with the new eye. All they really did was put a slightly faster chip in their console... big deal, and because they are so cheap to get the big games they are buying up all these shitty indie games. give me a break.

#5 Edited by LadyBlue (3637 posts) -

They all brought something that helped. You'd be a fanatical to say otherwise.

#6 Edited by Chutebox (36174 posts) -

Sony copied wii u's gamepad screen, (a cheap version with no display) and copied the Kinect with the new eye. All they really did was put a slightly faster chip in their console... big deal, and because they are so cheap to get the big games they are buying up all these shitty indie games. give me a break.

What?

#7 Posted by casharmy (6813 posts) -

Sony didn't save shit, because nothing failed. It did, however, take them three years to make their console worth a damn. Thank God that waiting period is over.

The waiting period was over the minute MGS4 was released on PS3 June 2008 (a 10/10 rated title here which no xbox360 title could ever match) and that was only a year and 5 months...

since xbox360 was never able to receive such a highly regarded exclusive title I guess we are still waiting for xbox360 to be worth a damn.

#8 Posted by kingoflife9 (1987 posts) -

@casharmy:

@casharmy said:

@DarkLink77 said:

Sony didn't save shit, because nothing failed. It did, however, take them three years to make their console worth a damn. Thank God that waiting period is over.

The waiting period was over the minute MGS4 was released on PS3 June 2008 (a 10/10 rated title here which no xbox360 title could ever match) and that was only a year and 5 months...

since xbox360 was never able to receive such a highly regarded exclusive title I guess we are still waiting for xbox360 to be worth a damn.

I dno, I love mgs4, but I loved left 4 dead 1 and 2, and gears of war 1,2, and 3. 360 had alot of great exclusives.

#9 Posted by DarkLink77 (31683 posts) -

@casharmy said:

@DarkLink77 said:

Sony didn't save shit, because nothing failed. It did, however, take them three years to make their console worth a damn. Thank God that waiting period is over.

The waiting period was over the minute MGS4 was released on PS3 June 2008 (a 10/10 rated title here which no xbox360 title could ever match) and that was only a year and 5 months...

since xbox360 was never able to receive such a highly regarded exclusive title I guess we are still waiting for xbox360 to be worth a damn.

Are we still using the, "It got a 10 here, better than every other game, I have no mind of my own, blah blah blah" argument on this site? Pathetic.

Metal Gear Solid 4 is a bad joke and an insult to the MGS series, and even if it wasn't, one game, no matter how good it is, doesn't make a $600 system worth owning. The PS3 only became worth the money when Demon's Souls and Uncharted 2 released.

#10 Edited by LadyBlue (3637 posts) -

@DarkLink77: MGS is an insult to itself. One of the most pretentious series I have ever played. They're lucky the gameplay is good.

#11 Posted by Gue1 (9096 posts) -

#12 Posted by DarkLink77 (31683 posts) -

@Pete-B said:

@DarkLink77:

MGS is an insult to itself. One of the most pretentious series I have ever played. They're lucky the gameplay is good.

It's got its issues, but MGS3 is a damn good game that actually spins a decent yarn. So is the original, for that matter.

#13 Posted by CanYouDiglt (7242 posts) -

Lol some of the comments on here just blow my mind. The console with the smallest game library and a worse game library according to critic scores saved gaming. This is why this site is so hard to take serious because of threads like this.

#14 Edited by Davekeeh (4019 posts) -

Sony did save console gaming.

Can you imagine a world where people could only choose between an anti-consumer box or a Wii U?

Sounds like hell to me

#15 Posted by helwa1988 (2036 posts) -

I had a good laugh for 5 minutes when i read this thread title. Sony didn't do anything for this generation yet.

Unfortunately there is nothing Sony,Nintendo or Microsoft can do to save the gaming industry. The casuals have taken over and they only care about mobile gaming because it's cheaper than buying $40 games.

#16 Posted by remiks00 (1531 posts) -

Demon Souls & Uncharted 2 are the reasons I bought a PS3 in 2009. I still hated PSN back then with a passion compared to XBL. But Microsoft lost me around 2010-2011 because of their focus on Kinect, and I got tried of playing Gears & Halo... >_>.

#17 Edited by casharmy (6813 posts) -

@DarkLink77 said:

@casharmy said:

@DarkLink77 said:

Sony didn't save shit, because nothing failed. It did, however, take them three years to make their console worth a damn. Thank God that waiting period is over.

The waiting period was over the minute MGS4 was released on PS3 June 2008 (a 10/10 rated title here which no xbox360 title could ever match) and that was only a year and 5 months...

since xbox360 was never able to receive such a highly regarded exclusive title I guess we are still waiting for xbox360 to be worth a damn.

Are we still using the, "It got a 10 here, better than every other game, I have no mind of my own, blah blah blah" argument on this site? Pathetic.

Metal Gear Solid 4 is a bad joke and an insult to the MGS series, and even if it wasn't, one game, no matter how good it is, doesn't make a $600 system worth owning. The PS3 only became worth the money when Demon's Souls and Uncharted 2 released.

Your comment was pretty pathetic. I made my post to point out how pathetic it was. Seems it still didn't do the trick since you still insist on talking non-sense.

You say no game no matter how good doesn't make a $600 system worth owning...(despite the hardwre in PS3 that was worth over $1000 retail at the time) but PS3 has more games than MGS4 before it released. And furthermore let me flip your WHOLE argument now on it's head. You are relying on a fanboy double standard to try to justify your sillly argument saying "I have no mind of my own" when I point out MGS4's perfect score here on GS............................However

you will point to GS scores to justify saying PS3 wasn't worth a damn *cough* like you "have no mind of [your] own". So tell me hypocrite, decide what your argument is now please because your original argument just fell apart if you are insisting that I use my own mind when deciding the quality of games on a platform.

:) Thank you and good bye

#18 Edited by kingoflife9 (1987 posts) -

@helwa1988: you must be a 3ds gamer. The gaming industry is doing fine. People like me like to buy high quality $65 games. you can go have fun with your angry birds.

#19 Edited by DarkLink77 (31683 posts) -

@casharmy said:

@DarkLink77 said:

@casharmy said:

@DarkLink77 said:

Sony didn't save shit, because nothing failed. It did, however, take them three years to make their console worth a damn. Thank God that waiting period is over.

The waiting period was over the minute MGS4 was released on PS3 June 2008 (a 10/10 rated title here which no xbox360 title could ever match) and that was only a year and 5 months...

since xbox360 was never able to receive such a highly regarded exclusive title I guess we are still waiting for xbox360 to be worth a damn.

Are we still using the, "It got a 10 here, better than every other game, I have no mind of my own, blah blah blah" argument on this site? Pathetic.

Metal Gear Solid 4 is a bad joke and an insult to the MGS series, and even if it wasn't, one game, no matter how good it is, doesn't make a $600 system worth owning. The PS3 only became worth the money when Demon's Souls and Uncharted 2 released.

Your comment was pretty pathetic. I made my post to point out how pathetic it was. Seems it still didn't do the trick since you still insist on talking non-sense.

You say no game no matter how good doesn't make a $600 system worth owning...but PS3 has more games than MGS4 before it released. And furthermore let me flip your WHOLE argument now on it's head. You are relying on a fanboy double standard to try to justify your sillly argument saying "I have no mind of my own" when I point out MGS4's perfect score here on GS............................However

you will point to GS scores to justify saying PS3 wasn't worth a damn *cough* like you "have no mind of [your] own". So tell me hypocrite, decide what your argument is now please because your original argument just fell apart if you are insisting that I use my own mind when deciding the quality of games on a platform.

:) Thank you and good bye

Nah, my comment was spot on. You sound mad because I bashed your system of choice, which was an excellent system once it got going.

As for the games that released before Metal Gear Solid 4, they were pretty forgettable experiences. No one is going to look back at them as a reason to own the platform.

When did I point to GS scores anywhere in my posts other than to mock your argument that scores make the game? I did not use GS scores when I said DS or UC2 were excellent games. I said they were excellent games, which is an argument I can back up with the design of the games themselves, without any use for scores. I can also argue why MGS4 is a poor game without using them. You, however, immediately jumped to MGS4 and used its score, and its score alone, to imply that the game was worth owning, and automatically better than every other game that has not scored a 10 on this site. So no, that's not about you "having a mind of your own." That's about you using a score, and nothing else, to make an argument.

At this point, you're just making shit up and putting words in my mouth as a poor excuse for an argument. C'mon, dude. If you're gonna call me a hypocrite, at least do it for something I said. Jesus.

#20 Edited by casharmy (6813 posts) -

@DarkLink77 said:

@casharmy said:

@DarkLink77 said:

@casharmy said:

@DarkLink77 said:

Sony didn't save shit, because nothing failed. It did, however, take them three years to make their console worth a damn. Thank God that waiting period is over.

The waiting period was over the minute MGS4 was released on PS3 June 2008 (a 10/10 rated title here which no xbox360 title could ever match) and that was only a year and 5 months...

since xbox360 was never able to receive such a highly regarded exclusive title I guess we are still waiting for xbox360 to be worth a damn.

Are we still using the, "It got a 10 here, better than every other game, I have no mind of my own, blah blah blah" argument on this site? Pathetic.

Metal Gear Solid 4 is a bad joke and an insult to the MGS series, and even if it wasn't, one game, no matter how good it is, doesn't make a $600 system worth owning. The PS3 only became worth the money when Demon's Souls and Uncharted 2 released.

Your comment was pretty pathetic. I made my post to point out how pathetic it was. Seems it still didn't do the trick since you still insist on talking non-sense.

You say no game no matter how good doesn't make a $600 system worth owning...but PS3 has more games than MGS4 before it released. And furthermore let me flip your WHOLE argument now on it's head. You are relying on a fanboy double standard to try to justify your sillly argument saying "I have no mind of my own" when I point out MGS4's perfect score here on GS............................However

you will point to GS scores to justify saying PS3 wasn't worth a damn *cough* like you "have no mind of [your] own". So tell me hypocrite, decide what your argument is now please because your original argument just fell apart if you are insisting that I use my own mind when deciding the quality of games on a platform.

:) Thank you and good bye

Nah, my comment was spot on. You sound mad because I bashed your system of choice, which was an excellent system once it got going.

As for the games that released before Metal Gear Solid 4, they were pretty forgettable experiences. No one is going to look back at them as a reason to own the platform.

When did I point to GS scores anywhere in my posts other than to mock your argument that scores make the game? I did not use GS scores when I said DS or UC2 were excellent games. I said they were excellent games, which is an argument I can back up with the design of the games themselves, without any use for scores. I can also argue why MGS4 is a poor game without using them.

At this point, you're just making shit up and putting words in my mouth as a poor excuse for an argument. C'mon, dude. If you're gonna call me a hypocrite, at least do it for something I said. Jesus.

lol, wow. Your whole post was filled with nothing but biased opinion.

it is funny you are going to sit here and try to act like you weren't using scores to justify your stupid original rant. You are obviously a huge fanboy. I am not the one who came off and said an entire line up of games was garbage for 3 years ( a comment which I proved wrong both critical praise and fan praise)

Fist of all you can't use ONLY your personal opinion of a game or platform to make such a gross statement as the one you did unless you are just a blind fanboy like what I described. If you had said "imo" or "for me" then I wouldn't have even bothered making a comment but you needed someone to interject some reality into your fantasy land so I did.

1. If you are not using some kind of meter to justify your original comment and only using your opinion then you are full of **** and have 0 credibility in anything you said so what you said is worthless

or

2. You based your original comment off reviews for the critical acclaim of games which got proven wrong by the existence of MGS4 which also makes what you said wrong.

So take your pick? Either way what you said fails. Anyone can say a game sucks and justify it with personal opinion, that doesn't make it credible.

Thank you and have a nice day.

#21 Edited by tagyhag (15867 posts) -

Someone please tell me 5 MUST HAVE games for the PS3 before MSG4 was released. Otherwise this argument is stupid.

#22 Edited by casharmy (6813 posts) -

@tagyhag said:

Someone please tell me 5 MUST HAVE games for the PS3 before MSG4 was released. Otherwise this argument is stupid.

lol, first, define a "must have game"?

lol, as if that can even be done without using reviews and or personal opinion...which is what is being argued if you aren't really paying attention.

This discussion isn't stupid, but coming into it not understanding what is being discussed and trying to put a stance on it is!

#23 Posted by DarkLink77 (31683 posts) -

@casharmy said:

@DarkLink77 said:

@casharmy said:

@DarkLink77 said:

@casharmy said:

@DarkLink77 said:

Sony didn't save shit, because nothing failed. It did, however, take them three years to make their console worth a damn. Thank God that waiting period is over.

The waiting period was over the minute MGS4 was released on PS3 June 2008 (a 10/10 rated title here which no xbox360 title could ever match) and that was only a year and 5 months...

since xbox360 was never able to receive such a highly regarded exclusive title I guess we are still waiting for xbox360 to be worth a damn.

Are we still using the, "It got a 10 here, better than every other game, I have no mind of my own, blah blah blah" argument on this site? Pathetic.

Metal Gear Solid 4 is a bad joke and an insult to the MGS series, and even if it wasn't, one game, no matter how good it is, doesn't make a $600 system worth owning. The PS3 only became worth the money when Demon's Souls and Uncharted 2 released.

Your comment was pretty pathetic. I made my post to point out how pathetic it was. Seems it still didn't do the trick since you still insist on talking non-sense.

You say no game no matter how good doesn't make a $600 system worth owning...but PS3 has more games than MGS4 before it released. And furthermore let me flip your WHOLE argument now on it's head. You are relying on a fanboy double standard to try to justify your sillly argument saying "I have no mind of my own" when I point out MGS4's perfect score here on GS............................However

you will point to GS scores to justify saying PS3 wasn't worth a damn *cough* like you "have no mind of [your] own". So tell me hypocrite, decide what your argument is now please because your original argument just fell apart if you are insisting that I use my own mind when deciding the quality of games on a platform.

:) Thank you and good bye

Nah, my comment was spot on. You sound mad because I bashed your system of choice, which was an excellent system once it got going.

As for the games that released before Metal Gear Solid 4, they were pretty forgettable experiences. No one is going to look back at them as a reason to own the platform.

When did I point to GS scores anywhere in my posts other than to mock your argument that scores make the game? I did not use GS scores when I said DS or UC2 were excellent games. I said they were excellent games, which is an argument I can back up with the design of the games themselves, without any use for scores. I can also argue why MGS4 is a poor game without using them.

At this point, you're just making shit up and putting words in my mouth as a poor excuse for an argument. C'mon, dude. If you're gonna call me a hypocrite, at least do it for something I said. Jesus.

lol, wow. Your whole post was filled with nothing but biased opinion.

it is funny you are going to sit here and try to act like you weren't using scores to justify your stupid original rant. You are obviously a huge fanboy. I am not the one who came off and said an entire line up of games was garbage for 3 years ( a comment which I proved wrong both critical praise and fan praise)

Fist of all you can't use ONLY your personal opinion of a game or platform to make such a gross statement as the one you did unless you are just a blind fanboy like what I described. If you has said "imo" or "for me" then I wouldn't have even bothered making a comment but you needed someone to interject some reality into your fantasy land so I did.

1. If you are not using some kine of meter to justify your original comment then you are full of **** and have 0 credibility in anything you said so what you said is worthless

or

2. You based your original comment of reviews for the critical acclaim of games which got proven wrong by the existence of MGS4 which also makes what you said wrong.

So take your pick? Either way what you said fails. Anyone can say a game sucks and justify it with personal opinion, that doesn't make it credible.

Yep, I was trying to use scores. Which is why I never mentioned them, at all.

Yep, huge fanboy, which is why I said the PS3 is a great system, and just took some time to get going. Makes sense.

I didn't say the entire line up of games was garbage for 3 years. I said they weren't memorable (they aren't, aside from MGS4), and they were not worth purchasing a platform for. You have a real problem with putting words in other people's mouths when it suits your agenda.

I am not using my personal opinion. I am using the games themselves, which is "some kind of meter." In fact, it's the only one that matters. Metal Gear Solid 4 is a prime example of poor writing, retconning up the wazzoo, and bad pacing. You could maybe argue the third point, but the first two are pretty objective. That's not my opinion. That's being able to critique.

Nope, I based my original comment on the quality inherent in those games. Demon's Souls is not a good game because a bunch of reviewers said it was good. It's a good game because of the way it was designed. It's a good game because of how good the environmental storytelling is. It's a good game because of how precise and rewarding the combat is. It's a good game because of the encounter and environment design. It's not a good game because a bunch of people said it was a good game. It's a good game because it's a good game.

The game itself is the only measurement that matters.

So, once again, not wrong.

#24 Edited by Midnightshade29 (5224 posts) -

Sony didn't save shit, because nothing failed. It did, however, take them three years to make their console worth a damn. Thank God that waiting period is over.

Really? could of fooled me. It had uncharted, Heavenly Sword, Resistance fall of man, Ratchet and Clank, Motorstorm, Warhawk, Ninja Gaiiden Sigma and Folk Lore as great exclusives in year 1, plus multiplats like Oblivion Rainbow Six Vegas and Assassins Creed. Year 2 is when I got the console... it had 2 AAAA games back to back.... MGS4 and GTA4.. Picking up the console, for $400 in May 2008 when GTA came out was a pure win in my book. It complemented my then gaming pc and psp. Plus later that year, LBP, Motorostorm Pacific Rift, Disgaea 3, Resistance 2, and Katamari Forever all came out as exclusives that year..

You xbots think a system doesn't have games if it doesnt' have a "halo" seller? Seriousy bs... that meme. as the PS3 had great games in the first 3 years. (I won't even go into year 3 as it would embarrass you too much!)

#25 Posted by jsmoke03 (12473 posts) -

man without the levels, i think 90% of people that post are new to video games lol

anyway, gaming was fine this generation. its the first time i think that no one company stood out. they all had their successes and faults.

ninty won in sales, and had great first party games but i think they damaged their image in the long run (wii u) and they started the stupidity that is motion gaming

sony had some of the biggest blunders. they proved once again that there is a threshold to price with gamers. they lost most of their third party exclusives and had a bad 3 years. they got hacked. the failure of ylod....oh and vita. they also had a big comeback. they built their first party studios and released a bunch of great first party titles. 3 gs goty were sony exclusives. the introduction of psn plus (a discount and instant game collection i think is pretty awesome)

microsoft started awesome. the better multiplatform games. the expansion of xbl. achievements.explosion of indy games through xbla. however they had RROD. how many people bought 360 numerous times and how many had to get theirs replaced by ms with their warranty. they got lazy or something because they stopped halfway in the generation...probably because of the kinect. oh and the kinect.

#26 Posted by DarkLink77 (31683 posts) -

@DarkLink77 said:

Sony didn't save shit, because nothing failed. It did, however, take them three years to make their console worth a damn. Thank God that waiting period is over.

Really? could of fooled me. It had uncharted, Heavenly Sword, Resistance fall of man, Ratchet and Clank, Motorstorm, Warhawk, Ninja Gaiiden Sigma and Folk Lore as great exclusives in year 1, plus multiplats like Oblivion Rainbow Six Vegas and Assassins Creed. Year 2 is when I got the console... it had 2 AAAA games back to back.... MGS4 and GTA4.. Picking up the console, for $400 in May 2008 when GTA came out was a pure win in my book. It complemented my then gaming pc and psp. Plus later that year, LBP, Motorostorm Pacific Rift, Disgaea 3, Resistance 2, and Katamari Forever all came out as exclusives that year..

You xbots think a system doesn't have games if it doesnt' have a "halo" seller? Seriousy bs... that meme. as the PS3 had great games in the first 3 years. (I won't even go into year 3 as it would embarrass you too much!)

1. Most of those games are not good enough to justify dropping $600.

2. Ninja Gaiden is not exclusive. Sigma is basically just a toned down version of Black.

3. Multiplats are not a good reason to buy a console.

4. I never said a system isn't worth owning if it doesn't have a "Halo" seller. I'm also not a lemming just because I said something negative about the PS3's launch, which was, let's be fair, not all that great.

5. Year 3 (aka 2009) was the year the system was worth the money. So you're right, there's no reason to go into year three, because I already agreed with you.

#27 Posted by casharmy (6813 posts) -

@DarkLink77 said:

Sony didn't save shit, because nothing failed. It did, however, take them three years to make their console worth a damn. Thank God that waiting period is over.

Really? could of fooled me. It had uncharted, Heavenly Sword, Resistance fall of man, Ratchet and Clank, Motorstorm, Warhawk, Ninja Gaiiden Sigma and Folk Lore as great exclusives in year 1, plus multiplats like Oblivion Rainbow Six Vegas and Assassins Creed. Year 2 is when I got the console... it had 2 AAAA games back to back.... MGS4 and GTA4.. Picking up the console, for $400 in May 2008 when GTA came out was a pure win in my book. It complemented my then gaming pc and psp. Plus later that year, LBP, Motorostorm Pacific Rift, Disgaea 3, Resistance 2, and Katamari Forever all came out as exclusives that year..

You xbots think a system doesn't have games if it doesnt' have a "halo" seller? Seriousy bs... that meme. as the PS3 had great games in the first 3 years. (I won't even go into year 3 as it would embarrass you too much!)

Thank you.

I will save myself the trouble of further argument with this guy. I was going to take the time to slowly break down how stupid and fanboyishly blind his original comment was but he isn't worth it. Your post clearly illustrates how blind he is, no point in saying anything more really.

#28 Edited by DarkLink77 (31683 posts) -

@casharmy said:
@Midnightshade29 said:

@DarkLink77 said:

Sony didn't save shit, because nothing failed. It did, however, take them three years to make their console worth a damn. Thank God that waiting period is over.

Really? could of fooled me. It had uncharted, Heavenly Sword, Resistance fall of man, Ratchet and Clank, Motorstorm, Warhawk, Ninja Gaiiden Sigma and Folk Lore as great exclusives in year 1, plus multiplats like Oblivion Rainbow Six Vegas and Assassins Creed. Year 2 is when I got the console... it had 2 AAAA games back to back.... MGS4 and GTA4.. Picking up the console, for $400 in May 2008 when GTA came out was a pure win in my book. It complemented my then gaming pc and psp. Plus later that year, LBP, Motorostorm Pacific Rift, Disgaea 3, Resistance 2, and Katamari Forever all came out as exclusives that year..

You xbots think a system doesn't have games if it doesnt' have a "halo" seller? Seriousy bs... that meme. as the PS3 had great games in the first 3 years. (I won't even go into year 3 as it would embarrass you too much!)

Thank you.

I will save myself the trouble of further argument with this guy. I was going to take the time to slowly break down how stupid and fanboyishly blind his original comment was but he isn't worth it. Your post clearly illustrates how blind he is, no point in saying anything more really.

Read: I have no further response because I can't make up any more strawmen to argue against.

But at least we can agree that Demon's Souls was pretty ace.

#29 Posted by tagyhag (15867 posts) -

@casharmy said:

@tagyhag said:

Someone please tell me 5 MUST HAVE games for the PS3 before MSG4 was released. Otherwise this argument is stupid.

lol, first, define a "must have game"?

lol, as if that can even be done without using reviews and or personal opinion...which is what is being argued if you aren't really paying attention.

This discussion isn't stupid, but coming into it not understanding what is being discussed and trying to put a stance on it is!

Games that you HAD to play, games that defined the system, games that you couldn't find anywhere else.

So basically, something that's NOT Resistance, because anyone who has played that game knows it wasn't what every Sony fan was expecting out of the PS3.

Of course, I have high standards so for someone with low standards I can see games like that being a must have.

#30 Posted by casharmy (6813 posts) -

@DarkLink77: lol Bizzoro world? No it's call objective and reality, not the place you seem to fly off into in the depts of your mind.

I'd like to ask you, what game on 360 justified dropping $400 to own the system?

#31 Posted by j_assassin (878 posts) -

I agree, sony playstation has got different variety of good games like demons souls, valkyria chronicles, little big planet, ni no kuni, mgs 4, etc...

#32 Edited by DarkLink77 (31683 posts) -

@casharmy said:

@DarkLink77: lol Bizzoro world? No it's call objective and reality, not the place you seem to fly off into in the depts of your mind.

I'd like to ask you, what game on 360 justified dropping $400 to own the system?

Oh, I dunno, I thought I was being more than fair.

At launch? None of them. I'd say the 360 really wasn't worth owning until around 2007, to be honest.

#33 Posted by p3anut (5838 posts) -

The Wii saved gaming. It brought more casuals to the market.

#34 Posted by Blabadon (25187 posts) -

As someone who dropped $570 on a PS3 in 2008, it wasn't worth it.

If it wasn't for Uncharted 1, I would have sold it then and there.

#35 Posted by Gue1 (9096 posts) -

@tagyhag said:

Someone please tell me 5 MUST HAVE games for the PS3 before MSG4 was released. Otherwise this argument is stupid.

1. Resistance

2. Heavenly Sword

3. Valkyria Chronicles

4. Uncharted

5. MotorStorm

6. Ninja Gaiden Sigma

7. Warhawk

#36 Posted by casharmy (6813 posts) -

@tagyhag:

@tagyhag said:

@casharmy said:

@tagyhag said:

Someone please tell me 5 MUST HAVE games for the PS3 before MSG4 was released. Otherwise this argument is stupid.

lol, first, define a "must have game"?

lol, as if that can even be done without using reviews and or personal opinion...which is what is being argued if you aren't really paying attention.

This discussion isn't stupid, but coming into it not understanding what is being discussed and trying to put a stance on it is!

Games that you HAD to play, games that defined the system, games that you couldn't find anywhere else.

So basically, something that's NOT Resistance, because anyone who has played that game knows it wasn't what every Sony fan was expecting out of the PS3.

Of course, I have high standards so for someone with low standards I can see games like that being a must have.

lol, hold up Mr. Biased personal opinion. Since when could you decided which individual games are must have and not. I simply asked you to define a must have game.

I could have said you were doing ok until then, but you had to mess it up didn't you?

All that personal opinion mess up the credibility of what I was asking you for. Before you even started I put the dissimilar in there about personal opinions. You could have used something like sales, or high critical acclaim, awards with parent company endorsed posters ect.

Going by your post tho, the guy I was debating with IS STILL WRONG...with the example I originally used MSG4. His argument was that PS3 wasn't worth a damn for 3 years. You come in and try to change the argument and make up some arbitrary number of "must have games" BEFORE MGS4 to try to validate the original stupidity of his comment but that is just some weak bait and switch mumbo jumbo.

I could name 5 "must have games" on PS3 before MGS4 starting with Resistance 1 (you tried to eliminate that...fanboy move) because you wanted to perpetuate the original fanboy fallacy isn't that correct? if not then you need to stop with the desperate attempts to make what he said be somehow correct.

BTW:

Resistance Fall of Man, War Hawk, Heavenly Sword, Motorstorm, Uncharted: Drakes Fourtune.

#37 Posted by tagyhag (15867 posts) -
@casharmy said:

lol, hold up Mr. Biased personal opinion. Since when could you decided which individual games are must have and not. I simply asked you to define a must have game.

I could have said you were doing ok until then, but you had to mess it up didn't you?

All that personal opinion mess up the credibility of what I was asking you for. Before you even started I put the dissimilar in there about personal opinions. You could have used something like sales, or high critical acclaim, awards with parent company endorsed posters ect.

Going by your post tho, the guy I was debating with IS STILL WRONG...with the example I originally used MSG4. His argument was that PS3 wasn't worth a damn for 3 years. You come in and try to change the argument and make up some arbitrary number of "must have games" BEFORE MGS4 to try to validate the original stupidity of his comment but that is just some weak bait and switch mumbo jumbo.

I could name 5 "must have games" on PS3 before MGS4 starting with Resistance 1 (you tried to eliminate that...fanboy move) because you wanted to perpetuate the original fanboy fallacy isn't that correct? if not then you need to stop with the desperate attempts to make what he said be somehow correct.

BTW:

Resistance Fall of Man, War Hawk, Heavenly Sword, Motorstorm, Uncharted: Drakes Fourtune.

I just tried to get rid of Resistance early because it honestly wasn't a good game, unless you can give me good reasons other than "One of the best FPS'es ever made!" or "I want Sony's dick in and around my mouth!"

The point that DarkLink was trying to make is that you wouldn't really feel satisfied spending all that money on a PS3 expecting all that Sony told you to expect during the first years, even some diehard fanboys realized that Sony lied to them.

@Gue1 said:

2. Heavenly Sword

3. Valkyria Chronicles

7. Warhawk

I agree with these. There were experiences that you pretty much couldn't get on any other system. I wouldn't shell out $600 + tax just for these games but they're good choices.

#38 Edited by Blueresident87 (5195 posts) -

Why did the industry need 'saving' in the first place this gen? Exactly when did that happen?

Was it when all 3 console companies were, at one point or another, raking in millions and millions of dollars...? Because in that case all of them did a fantastic job at playing savior the past several years.

#39 Posted by DanteSuikoden (3418 posts) -

Maybe seeing how Microsoft and Nintendo basically stopped trying after 2009.

#40 Posted by DarkLink77 (31683 posts) -

@tagyhag said:
@casharmy said:

lol, hold up Mr. Biased personal opinion. Since when could you decided which individual games are must have and not. I simply asked you to define a must have game.

I could have said you were doing ok until then, but you had to mess it up didn't you?

All that personal opinion mess up the credibility of what I was asking you for. Before you even started I put the dissimilar in there about personal opinions. You could have used something like sales, or high critical acclaim, awards with parent company endorsed posters ect.

Going by your post tho, the guy I was debating with IS STILL WRONG...with the example I originally used MSG4. His argument was that PS3 wasn't worth a damn for 3 years. You come in and try to change the argument and make up some arbitrary number of "must have games" BEFORE MGS4 to try to validate the original stupidity of his comment but that is just some weak bait and switch mumbo jumbo.

I could name 5 "must have games" on PS3 before MGS4 starting with Resistance 1 (you tried to eliminate that...fanboy move) because you wanted to perpetuate the original fanboy fallacy isn't that correct? if not then you need to stop with the desperate attempts to make what he said be somehow correct.

BTW:

Resistance Fall of Man, War Hawk, Heavenly Sword, Motorstorm, Uncharted: Drakes Fourtune.

I just tried to get rid of Resistance early because it honestly wasn't a good game, unless you can give me good reasons other than "One of the best FPS'es ever made!" or "I want Sony's dick in and around my mouth!"

The point that DarkLink was trying to make is that you wouldn't really feel satisfied spending all that money on a PS3 expecting all that Sony told you to expect during the first years, even some diehard fanboys realized that Sony lied to them.

@Gue1 said:

2. Heavenly Sword

3. Valkyria Chronicles

7. Warhawk

I agree with these. There were experiences that you pretty much couldn't get on any other system. I wouldn't shell out $600 + tax just for these games but they're good choices.

Finally, someone who can read.

#41 Posted by M8ingSeezun (1951 posts) -

I wouldn't go as far as "saving this generation".

What PS3 did manage successfully was giving gamers a fair well rounded balance of games, from 3rd party multiplats to exclusives. It had variety and still retained that "hardcore" mantra. It NEVER deviated into a casual platform, despite supporting the PS Move. And Sony knew who their demographics were. They've been practically consistent.

For 7 years, the PS3 struggled in an uphill battle, from its horrid launch price, into a well rounded, imo, balance console that provided games that most core gamers can enjoy.

#42 Posted by treedoor (7478 posts) -

You know cows have bad taste in games when they think Resistance is a reason to own the PS3.

That was 2nd worst FPS released this gen (first being Duke Nukem Forever).

#43 Posted by SonofK (1066 posts) -

@casharmy said:

@DarkLink77 said:

Sony didn't save shit, because nothing failed. It did, however, take them three years to make their console worth a damn. Thank God that waiting period is over.

The waiting period was over the minute MGS4 was released on PS3 June 2008 (a 10/10 rated title here which no xbox360 title could ever match) and that was only a year and 5 months...

since xbox360 was never able to receive such a highly regarded exclusive title I guess we are still waiting for xbox360 to be worth a damn.

MGS4 is one of the biggest pieces of sh*t I've ever played. If anything that takes away the credibility of Sony and it's fans for praising that garbage, and even if it was a decent game there's a strong chance that the Legacy Collection will be on the Xb1 so it won't be exclusive anymore.

#44 Posted by John_Matherson (2031 posts) -

@tagyhag: How about you tell me 5 must have games for the 360 AFTER MGS4 was released. Otherwise...well, nevermind lemmings are already...lemmings..

#45 Edited by SonofK (1066 posts) -

@treedoor said:

You know cows have bad taste in games when they think Resistance is a reason to own the PS3.

That was 2nd worst FPS released this gen (first being Duke Nukem Forever).

There was also Haze which was pretty rancid, I remember PS3 fans hyping it to be a Halo killer like Killzone.

#46 Posted by treedoor (7478 posts) -

@SonofK said:

@treedoor said:

You know cows have bad taste in games when they think Resistance is a reason to own the PS3.

That was 2nd worst FPS released this gen (first being Duke Nukem Forever).

There was also Haze which was pretty rancid

I've heard bad things, but fortunately I have not experienced that game :P

#47 Posted by musicalmac (22657 posts) -

Are those without a PS3 still unsaved?

#48 Edited by CJ_ofCamelot (1764 posts) -

O C'mon, this all couldn't be possible without Microsoft helping!!

#49 Posted by tagyhag (15867 posts) -

@tagyhag: How about you tell me 5 must have games for the 360 AFTER MGS4 was released. Otherwise...well, nevermind lemmings are already...lemmings..

Oh sweet I'm a lemming? I have now officially been called every SW group! :D

I'd say: Mushihime-sama Futari, Gears 3, DoDonPachi Dai Ou Jou Black Label Extra, Deathsmiles II, and Forza 4.

#50 Posted by Merex760 (4279 posts) -

You'd have to be a pretty big fanboy to not recognize the impact Sony had on console gaming this generation. Microsoft also had a major impact, but more with services than games. As far as games offered by first party studios, consoles would look pretty bleak if Sony wasn't there.